Meinersbur marked an inline comment as done.
Meinersbur added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/include/clang/AST/StmtOpenMP.h:4781-4784
+/// This represents the '#pragma omp tile' loop transformation directive.
+class OMPTileDirective final
+ : public OMPLoopDirective,
+ private llvm::TrailingObjects<OMPTileDirective, OMPClause *, Stmt *> {
----------------
ABataev wrote:
> Not sure that this is a good idea to treat this directive as the executable
> directive. To me, it looks like kind of `AttributedStmt`. Maybe better to
> introduce some kind of a new base node for this and similar constructs, which
> does not own the loop but is its kind of attribute-like entity?
> Also, can we have something like:
> ```
> #pragma omp simd
> #pragma omp tile ...
> for(...) ;
> ```
> Thoughts?
While not executed at runtime, syntactically it is parsed like a executable
(loop-associated) directive. IMHO it does 'own' the loop, but produces another
one for to be owned(/associated) by a different directive, as in your tile/simd
example, which should already work. Allowing this was the motivation to do the
transformation on the AST-level for now.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D76342/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D76342
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
